4 Whurley Way, Maidenhead

Decision

dismissed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: P Brennan

Authority

Windsor and Maidenhead (South East)

Appeal reference

6008337

Application reference

26/00052

Procedure

written representations

Development

Part single, part two-storey side/rear extension forming a separate two-bedroom (claimed self-build) dwelling on a corner plot, with drop kerbs and parking

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.04 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), CC3(1)(d), DP3(2)(b)

Development plan policies

RBWM Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 QP3, SP2, EP1, Borough Wide Design Guide SPD 2020, Sustainability SPD 2024

Main issues

character and appearance; living conditions of future occupiers; climate change measures

Summary

A proposal to form a separate dwelling as a side extension to a corner semi in Maidenhead was dismissed. The council had a 4.04-year supply and had failed the HDT, and HO7 substantial weight was given to the new home. The S4 presumption was nevertheless disapplied. The adverse effects "substantially outweighed" the benefits: conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) street scene, L2(1)(d)(ii) living standards, and CC3/DP3(2)(b) overheating.

Issues and findings

• Character — L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL. The blank elevations and recessed first floor give "an incongruous and visually discordant development", compounded by the "highly visible and prominent corner position" (DL ¶9). "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene … in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) of the Framework" (DL ¶30).
• Living standards — L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL. The only private garden is 52.5 sqm at the front and side next to the highway. "soft landscaping is not a reliable or permanent means of providing screening" (DL ¶12).
• Climate — CC3(1)(d), DP3(2)(b): FAIL. "The proposal also fails to address overheating" (DL ¶31). There is no s106 to secure the carbon-offset review (DL ¶18-19).
• Benefits. HO7 substantial weight, "especially pertinent" given 4.04 years and HDT failure (DL ¶27). Accessible location (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

S4(1): "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶32). The development-plan conflict (QP3, SP2, EP1) carried significant weight (DL ¶26).

What made the difference

Three separate policy failures, all expressed as national policy conflicts (L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii) and CC3/DP3(2)(b)), together cleared the "substantially outweighed" bar despite HO7 substantial weight and a shortfall. A conventional terrace-end dwelling with a rear garden, as in the appellant's comparators, would likely have passed.

Transferable points

• L2(1)(d)'s qualifying criteria (street scene; daylight, privacy and amenity space) work as free-standing national decision-making tests that count against S4, not only as conditions on the L2 substantial weight (DL ¶30).
• An energy statement that does not address overheating conflicts with CC3(1)(d)/DP3(2)(b) (DL ¶31).
• A fallback only gets significant weight if it is a real possibility and equally or more harmful (DL ¶20-21).
• Drafting slip: codes written as "H07", "S03", "S04" (DL ¶27-28).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council supply 4.04 years at 10 March 2026 and HDT not met (DL 27)
• Proposed garden 52.48 sqm against SPD 55 sqm, located beside highway (DL 11-12)
• Parties were consulted on the revised Framework (DL 4)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.